The Christian Conundrum

Caught between Scylla and Charybdis.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: This post was coauthored by Jack and NovaSeeker.
Length: 2,300 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes

Introduction

February’s theme has been about the Mating Marketplace. In these posts, Jack and I described how modern western culture has created a gynocentric Socio-Sexual Marketplace (SMP), and how the Marriage Marketplace (MMP) has been subsumed by the secularized SMP.

The conclusions of last two posts listed above introduced us to the Christian Conundrum, which results from the following realities:

  • In the interests of preserving the spiritual integrity of the home, Christians should only marry other Christians.
  • Under morally orthodox Christian teaching, Christians should not have sex outside of marriage.
  • Under contemporary social practice, namely the linking of the SMP and the MMP, including for most Christians, men and women will face substantial difficulties securing an attractive mate for marriage without having sex prior to marrying.

This post will examine the nuances of this conundrum.

There’s No Clear Path to Marriage!

This conundrum poses a difficult situation for Christians living in the West. The options boil down to two basic choices – to conform to scriptural mandates or not, and two basic outcomes – having a functional marriage or not. The soul snap comes when we see that the choices and the outcomes have no definite correlation. That is to say…

  • Some people will follow the rules and get lucky in love and marriage, albeit a very small number of them. Fellow bloggers Mike Davis, Ed Hurst, and Derek Ramsey are excellent examples.
  • Others will follow the rules and lose out on a mate (as Jack did for a good many years), or else have their marriages eventually blow up over some permutation of the issue of sex (or the absence thereof) in the marriage. This is what happened in John Mitchell’s and Sharkly’s marriages, and the sexual issue played a role in my own marriage too.
  • Some will break the rules and end up in solid marriages. This is the case of frequent commenters Scott, Elspeth, and Cameron, as well as a few others who are too busy enjoying their marriages to shadow an internet blog.
  • Others who break the rules will end up divorced, however, because at the end of the day women are fickle by nature and the law permits them to act on that, period. Jack can attest to this, as well as many of our readers.

And there are various permutations of this as well. In my own marriage I followed some of the rules (my ex was n=0 when we married, although I was not, so I fornicated, but not with my ex prior to marriage and not with anyone else, either, after meeting my ex), in some ways, but not in others (married 3-4 years ahead of schedule for highly educated people prior to education being finished rather than after, and with a 5-year age gap which was already becoming unusual by the late 90s when I married). I am sure there are numerous other such mash-up permutations in people’s actual lives as well.

Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet in terms of what will guarantee finding a mate or a durable marriage.  If you do go the chaste route, though, the first step — that of finding a mate — is clearly a LOT harder.

This conundrum is why many people adopt an approach that one of my Mormon colleagues once jokingly described to me as follows: “It is easier/better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.”  That is, people proceed in a way that appears to offer the best chance at the successful goal they want to reach (a long term stable and happy marriage), even if they have to flout the moral rules in their 20s to do so, banking on the availability of the divine forgiveness later on, so as to get a “win win” situation for everyone.  They get their marriage, their children, and the numerous blessings that go along with both, including their sexual satisfaction.  God gets to display the glory of His grace upon their repentance.  They get their salvation.  It’s all good, right?

The trouble is that the process of living your 20s that way changes you, in subtle ways.  Sins damage us in ways that are hard for us to predict in advance, and that differ between individuals.  It can be hard to ever spiritually recover in a genuine way from having deliberately lived sinfully, knowing full well you were flouting the rules. 

It can be challenging to actually have a repentant attitude, later in life, about these sins which led to a happy marriage. People may express regrets about the sin, but actual repentance is much harder, because this would involve hating what they did to such a degree that they would always see their marriage as somewhat tainted by the serious sin that created it — which, in my experience, most people in this situation do not do, for rather obvious psychological reasons.  So true repentance here is certainly possible, as a divine gift, but can be hard to manifest once one has deliberately committed a serious sin with results that one sees as blessings. 

The upside, of course, is that in the meantime, you probably will be better skilled at maintaining a decent marriage in today’s culture, given that the ambient culture’s expectations apply to most marriages today, whether Christian or not.

It’s terrible that this is the choice we are faced with, but this is why culture matters. I wish there were a more upbeat solution to this conundrum, but I don’t think there is.

Case Study 1 — Ancient Roman Culture

The Roman culture of antiquity had many more sexual distractions than ours did (male Roman citizens had no difficulty in obtaining sexual access), which made it very hard for people to become Christian, especially men. Becoming a Christian meant foregoing sexual access not only to temple prostitutes, but also to one’s own slaves, of both sexes, as well as concubines, in the case of even more well-to-do male Roman citizens. And of course the early Christians were also being persecuted, and executed in some cases, for their faith. Most Christians compromised with the Romans to some extent to avoid the worst of the persecution, and most were received back by the Church when persecution later relaxed

So the problem that the early Christians faced was the opposite from ours with respect to women having power and men having sexual access (that is men had sexual access and women had little sexual power, apart from a few women in the aristocratic class), but it’s nevertheless similar in that God’s way is an alternate reality compared to the mores of the broader culture. The Biblical mandates will always run counter to the larger culture, because the culture is focused on happiness and immediate gratification, while God has a different ideal based on how He designed human beings. It so happens that this difference between the culture and God’s order can, at times, become so misaligned that adherence to the faith in its fullness results in great personal suffering, and this is what makes the faith so difficult in its demands when the culture is set against it.  I think we are living in such an age today, but it’s obviously much less dramatic and more prurient than was the case in Roman times. 

Just as in Roman times, the benefits of being disobedient to scriptural mandates have now become larger than life.  Some Christians are suffering for the faith, others are compromising in an effort to put their lives together, and trying to come back in repentance later. Some are chucking their faith altogether. We see a mixture of approaches taken by individuals in the response to a culture that forecloses access to sexuality and marriage for many people who follow God’s rules rigorously.

Case Study 2 — John and Nikole Mitchell

Back in January, I wrote about the now rather infamous case of Nikole Mitchell’s sexual metanoia in a series of three posts.

The story of John and Nikole’s marriage and its aftermath is a harrowing one, because it illustrates two difficult truths to men:

  1. Vetting has limited benefits and no guarantees.
  2. Conforming to God’s outline of Christian living doesn’t necessarily have a sweet ending.

You can meet a rather chaste woman (either of the virginal or “born again virgin” variety), or a woman who has some N count but isn’t, at the time, that focused on sexual vetting prior to marriage, because she has aligned with Christian values about sex and its proper value in life.  But … there’s no guarantee that later in the marriage she won’t become envious of other women who are getting better sex with sexier guys, guys who are better at sex, guys who have bigger c0cks (for some women, not all of them), and then decide that she wants better sex, that she deserves better sex, and so on. In fact, the culture blares this messaging at women non-stop.

And, for those of you who are reading this and saying to yourselves “well, you just need to vet harder”, I will state it again: Your wife can be n=0 from a religious family without divorce, no obvious red flags and … at some stage she just flips the script and decides she finally agrees with the cultural messaging, after all.

The point is, no matter whether you’ve spent all your life’s efforts to walk the straight and narrow, or whether you’ve lived it up before you settled down, their is very little certainty.  Such is the gynocentric sexual culture in which we live.

The World vs. The Faith

Christians are living in a very difficult time. There is no way to square this conundrum.  Pre-marital sex is immoral, plain and simple.  It always will be.  In our culture, the prevalence of pre-marital sex poses a tremendous impediment to getting married, and it can also work to blow up marriages, even for people who follow or come close to following the traditional Christian moral rules around sex.  But it is what it is.  The moral rules aren’t based on the culture.

Many, many minds have spent a great amount of time, energy and grey matter on this conundrum in the last 40 years or so.  There isn’t an answer that is both faithful and practical.  There are an abundance of answers which are mostly one or the other, and so most pick one or the other as between faithful and practical, and we all know which of those two most pick.

Churches are in total denial about this conundrum, as I have written before. Pastors and elders won’t address the issue because they are afraid to condemn a common social norm that violates doctrine. The leaders of churches should be talking about how illicit sex detracts from sanctification and holiness, but the social expectations run deeper than the call to holiness. They mostly just look the other way and pretend extra-marital sexual relations aren’t happening across the board, while knowing full well that it is. No layperson in the church is talking about the widespread abuse of God’s gift of sex, because those who are participating in it want to keep it hidden in the closet. They don’t want to be called out. Others who aren’t participating in the cultural melee are kind of left in the dark, simply because this subterfuged sex-culture is never brought to their attention, and they too, are afraid to investigate the rabbit hole.

There isn’t really a workable solution for Christians, unless they, as a community, elect to be entirely counter cultural and play that out.  It CAN work in those situations, where the woman is actually motivated by God and the fear of Him, enough to separate herself from the central importance of sexual satisfaction that the culture blares at her all day every day.  But these are few and far between.  They are outliers of outliers.  They are not the basis of a culture, but of a micro-subculture – one that the vast majority of Christian men are unlikely to find.

Conclusions

The gynocentric social norm is common, even within the church.

Although women will never come out and say that they want to postpone marriage, or that they want a divorce, just so they can screw Chads without limits, it is the unspoken desire and motivation in their hearts. Instead, they will hamsterize all kinds of solipsistic justifications for what they do, “I haven’t yet found Mr. Right”, “Finding one’s self”, “developing a career”, YOLO, etc. Men, in turn, need to be aware of this, and weigh their own approach to the problem carefully, keeping in mind their own situation.

In later posts, we will be addressing various approaches and options in more systematic detail to help readers work through the thought process in their own minds in a more systematic way.

Related

This entry was posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Feminism, Forgiveness, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Fundamental Frame, Hamsterbation, Handling Rejection, Hypergamy, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Perseverance, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Strategy, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to The Christian Conundrum

  1. SFC Ton says:

    I no longer give advice in certain areas because what is practical and effective is frequently 180 degrees out of phase from God’s way of doing business, but we all face certain moral dilemmas.

    We’ll all win some and lose some……

    Christians love to be extra preachy, hypocritical and self righteous over the question of sin, especially sex….. or like Nova said, they pretend it isn’t happening.

    It’s the mote vs beam thing.

    Liked by 7 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      I should also add, i dont ask for advice in those same areas becuase the advice I received, and freely choose to follow made my marriage worse and made life post divorce much more difficult

      Not sure when but it’s been a long time since I got any advice from a main stream Christian source that was worth listening too

      Liked by 3 people

  2. cameron232 says:

    From what I’ve read here, it seems like Scott’s first was a rule-following marriage. The problem seems to be that he didn’t have the “bux” part of alpha-bux locked in enough for her when she wanted that (that came later, he became the “total package” + sweet wife = ideal marriage). That woman must have been extremely hypergamous in the bux part of the equation. I wonder how you can screen for that? Pick a low ambition woman, pick a woman from a religious but modest achieving home?

    Aside from fear of God, one thing I suspect keeps women from defecting is connection to family/religious community and the fact that she loses this if she does the girls gone wild thing. And shame in the family and community, even if the outside world cheers her on.

    So having a tight knit family and religious community helps – you can create your tight knit family if you have a cooperative wife but the religious community has to be sought out and may involve sacrifices to connect with it.

    The Duggars, for all their weird theology, tacky celebrity, and scandal don’t seem to have any daughters or daughters in law that have defected yet.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      My first one was straight out of the red-pill screening/vetting playbook.

      Man with modest N to her zero on the wedding night
      Christian (like really devout)
      She was crazy about me
      She believed in male headship
      Very clear rules about what constitutes a divorceable offense (and I broke zero of them)

      “The world” and all its trappings about pursuing your soul mate once you realize he is not doing it for you got to her. Dalrock called this “the whispers.”

      Liked by 6 people

      • Scott says:

        So, the warning or this:

        No matter kind of woman you think you have, this could happen to you.

        When red pill Christian guys in happy marriages look at destroyed/blown up marriages and tell the broken husband he didn’t vet well enough I want to throttle their necks.

        Liked by 7 people

      • cameron232 says:

        not shocked she’s a published college professor – were there signs of her high ambition?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Right. It’s like I said above: Your wife can be n=0 from a religious family without divorce, no obvious red flags and … at some stage she just flips the script and decides she finally agrees with the cultural messaging, after all.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree Scott – I guess you try to maximize probability of success – I’m always trying to understand what the variables are – I would never tell a man he didn’t vet well enough.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Man I hate dumb phones and auto-correct.

        To your question, she was already in a masters degree program when we got married. I was playing catch up a bit (I was the co-owner with my dad in our family business, going to college at night. I think I was a junior when we got married)

        But at the time she was nothing but supportive. I would come home from school at like 10PM after 8 hours of work, and 4 more hours of school and she would make dinner and wait to eat with me. We would stay up and talk about the future, whatever. It was very sweet in those early days.

        The “other guy” about 6 years later, was a balding married maintenance guy at the public school where she worked. Not some super high achieving Chad boss or faculty peer of hers.

        I got my bachelors degree in something I hated (computer graphics and animation) just to prove I could finish. Then on to graduate school (the first time) for a totally useless masters degree in Christian Counseling.

        By the end of all that I was 28, and still basically a shop foreman in our family business. I got all that education because I thought she valued it. Then the “I’m leaving for the janitor at school and you can’t do anything about it” bomb was dropped. I frantically tried whatever I could to get her back.

        After about 6 months of depression (an actual major depressive episode) I peeled myself up off the ground, joined the army and made something of myself. For about the first three years of that I fantasized about her showing up at my doorstep, the wayward prodigal wife wanting to come home, and if that happened I would have welcomed her, no judgment, just love.

        I was late bloomer, yes. But I was a good and faithful loving husband the whole time we were married.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Scott – sounds like a person with really, bad emotional, psychological issues. You never know what people are carrying inside them – I’m sure as a psychologist you know this. Sorry for your experience – my wife and I went through a six month or so cold war – it was pretty horrible. Glad your persistence paid off though.

        Nova, I don’t know what you mean by that. If you mean, there’s a bunch of variables and the ones that correlate with successful marriage are rarely found in one woman – then yes – I agree. It is interesting to try to understand the variables, their interaction and magnitude of effect.

        If it’s completely random as to who blows up marriage then the entire message reduces to:

        Don’t marry. 2. Don’t marry unless you except 50% probability of divorce and much higher probability of divorce OR staying in an unhappy marriage. For most men this means MGTOW.

        If it’s that anything can happen no matter how you vet, then sure. This is the case for women too. Nice guy Christian husband can sleep with hookers or walk on her – she’s pretty vulnerable as a stay-at-home Christian mother for example.

        I didn’t have a clue what I was doing and so didn’t screen in any way so I wouldn’t chastise any other man for his lack of vetting As I’ve said I consider myself to have gotten lucky.

        Hope we aren’t talking past each other.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        In the interest of full disclosure, here’s what I did wrong.

        I announced from the start— way back before we were even dating — that I did not want kids. And further that I would never want kids. (She proceeded to behave as if she would change my mind on this, and I never did)

        I got grossly out of shape, very fast. I was thinking about using this as a spring board for a you tube video. She was an active person. Loved to be outside, hiking, running, riding horses. I was a couch potato and only became crazy fitness guy after. (This was part of my attempt to get her back, and it persists as a habit to this day)

        I never helped around the house. Prime example was when company was over, after dinner I would retire with the guys to the living room or office to smoke cigars while she cleaned. She hated this.

        Now, one could argue that these are not divorce worthy things— especially for Protestants, which we were at the time. (RC and Orthodox do have a martial obligation to procreate— so technically the marriage would not have met canonical form).

        Regardless, I later became the Uber motivated guy that everyone around here knows. And the variable that my ex could not have known, was that all this happened after.

        However— marriage, as I have pointed infinity times before doesn’t work like that. You stay, work it out, make your case, and move on.

        So I would let others decide what should have been the fate of that union.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Hope we aren’t talking past each other.

        My point is this. Trying to figure out “what was the red flag, or semi-red one, that he missed” or “what kinds of red flags are we not thinking about which we should be thinking about and figuring out how to screen for” and so on is not the fruitful way to think about this, in my opinion. Reasonable screening is necessary, that’s true, but trying to figure out how to build a better wife screener is a fool’s errand, that is the point.

        There is a random factor baked into any choice you make. The point of Scott’s experience, and mine for that matter, is that all the vetting in the world can’t rule out changes down range. It may lessen the probabilities, but it would appear — based on the marriages that have succeeded first go — that the correlation between more “airtight” screening and down range success of a first marriage is quite weak. The strong marriages here did not screen in that way — they started in rather more “conventional” ways with the kinds of “screens” that secular people use in relationships, given that everyone is basically screening for an optimal relationship whether they are secular or Christian.

        That’s the point. Look, I have a 20 year old son. I get the concern of “what is the answer for my kids ??? There has to be a swiss army knife. There has to be a silver bullet. There has to be a better screen, something we are missing, something that is the real answer.” There isn’t. And there doesn’t appear to be a substantial correlation between the degree of success/happiness I have seen in Christian marriages, on the one hand, and the degree of Christian screening/Christian behavior prior to marriage, on the other. That’s just the stark reality.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        In the interest of full disclosure, here’s what I did wrong.

        Most of those are mistakes, yes, but none of them are what a Christian would consider to be “marriage ending” type mistakes for someone who at one point believed in the Christian “limitations” on permitted divorce, at least for Protestants.

        In fact, they’re the kind of things that can crater secular marriages. Disagreements about having kids is a big one. Disagreements about who is doing what in the home. Disagreements about career/ambition/goals. Disparity in activity levels and, especially, any disparities that develop in fitness/appearance levels. Secular marriages fall apart for those reasons all the time.

        And, again, not to beat the poor dead horse more than is necessary, this is the point. These kinds of “secular problems” also crater “Christian” marriages, regardless of prior “Christian” screening, and prior to marriage Christian moral behavior in the relationship … because the culture continues to apply. It always applies. You can’t screen for that. If you fail to meet secular standards in the marriage, it can lead to the end of a Christian marriage even where the vetting was flying color pass up front, and even where those “failures” are not the kinds of things that form a valid ground for a divorce in the eyes of any Christian church.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Scott, Do I think that deserved cheating and divorce, I mean even from a secular point of view? Hell no.

        “…technically the marriage would not have met canonical form.”

        In my opinion, you weren’t married – no need for the “technically” part. Not married. You can tell her this – she is the only one – you don’t have an ex-wife except in the legal sense.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Cameron

        That is the position the Orthodox canonical algorithm arrived at, allowing me and Mychael to marry in the church after we had already been married in the secular sense for almost 10 years. (RC would call this convalidation)

        I had to repent of 40 plus years of pretending to be Protestant, she had to convert from RC. The previous marriage was not recognized.

        The only part I don’t like about that procedure is it does not retroactively legitimize your kids born prior. Only my youngest daughter was conceived and born into a family with two married, Orthodox parents and Chrismated as an infant.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Nova, well then I don’t know why we even bother to discuss things here beyond just bitching about how things suck as a warning to men not to marry.

        I see things in common with the three successful marriages that started in sin without proper screening or whatever. The marriage was open to (and I assume enthusiastic for) children, the women wanted to be (primarily) mothers and wives rather than careerists. My wife has a HS diploma. Elspeth is super-smart and widely read, but seems to direct the purpose of this to wife/motherhood (and I’m sure for personal intellectual fulfillment as well). Mychael is an RN which is a useful job (that attracts compassionate women**) and isn’t one of these careerist occupations. And yes, there was evident attraction directed towards the man from the get-go.

        ** Yes there are attention seeking RNs – but some women do get into it for the good reason.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Scott – we had an old Sicilian guy tell us our kids are bastards – I don’t really worry much about that sort of thing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        “Nova, well then I don’t know why we even bother to discuss things here beyond just bitching about how things suck as a warning to men not to marry.”

        Cameron, the point is that the three things you see as commonalities also have something else in common: none of them is a specifically Christian screen.

        The point of this post is the Christian conundrum. I do not disagree that there are benefits to screening people prior to marriage. The point is that the explicitly Christian screen doesn’t seem to make a difference, and it isn’t what made these marriages successful.

        In fact, I would say that there are any number of screens that one could use for a successful secular marriage. I know a number of long term secular marriages of varying degrees of happiness that have few or no children, women with very high powered careers who aren’t “sweet” and are, in fact, women who would be described as “careerists” by almost everyone here. In my workgroup alone I can count 5 of such marriages, all women in their 50s at this point, no divorces between them. I know we also like to say “well that doesn’t mean they are happy!”. You’re right, but it does mean that they are not divorced, unlike any number of “Christian”-screened marriages between people who “followed the Christian rules”.

        Again, and I will not apologize for repeating myself here, because it seems needed: that is the point of this post. The point is the dilemma that Christians specifically face. I don’t think that Jack or I would deny that there are various kinds of secular criteria one can apply (and perhaps that one should apply) which will lead to different degrees of marital success, depending on what kind of marriage you want to have, where “success” is defined at least as “not divorced” and right on up to “teenagers in love happy in perpetuity”.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Nova

        There has to be a swiss army knife. There has to be a silver bullet. There has to be a better screen, something we are missing, something that is the real answer.” There isn’t.

        What do you mean by “a swiss army knife”, of “a silver bullet”? Because, if that means a 100% effective screen, then no reasonable person is asking for that. Every reasonable person understands that probability exists, including free will, agency, and other wild cards.

        And there doesn’t appear to be a substantial correlation between the degree of success/happiness I have seen in Christian marriages, on the one hand, and the degree of Christian screening/Christian behavior prior to marriage, on the other. That’s just the stark reality.

        Except that’s empirically false. The data show that the #1 correlating factor for a happy marriage that lasts is virginity at marriage. DS has analyzed the data extensively. Are there exceptions to that rule? Of course there are. No reasonable person expects a 100% guarantee, because very few 100% guarantees exist in this life.

        It’s a pretty safe bet that a Danish guy is going to be taller than a Chinese guy, but no reasonable person expects every Danish guy to be taller than every Chinese guy. Likewise, it’s a pretty safe bet that if both spouses are virgins at marriage they’ll have a happier, stronger marriage than if they aren’t, but no reasonable person expects every marriage between two virgins to be happier and stronger than every marriage between two people who aren’t virgins at marriage.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Nova, I wouldn’t ask you to apologize. If anything, I should apologize for being so easily distracted from the main point – a personal flaw of mine – ADHD.

        I agree with you that some of the most important screening criteria are outside Christianity, even in conflict with Christianity. The visceral attraction thing.

        “Cameron, the point is that the three things you see as commonalities also have something else in common: none of them is a specifically Christian screen.”

        Disagree with at least one thing. Openness to children, desire for children IS a (positive, not “red flag”) Christian screen. That’s basic to Christian marriage. This is one thing the three successful Christian marriages (that are very happy marriages rather than “not divorced” marriages) have in common.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Cameron wrote,

        “Disagree with at least one thing. Openness to children, desire for children IS a (positive, not “red flag”) Christian screen. That’s basic to Christian marriage.”

        Yes, having children IS a central missive of a Christian marriage. NovaSeeker’s point is that it is not unique to Christianity. Many non-Christians desire to have children without thinking that it is their duty to God, and many Christians fail to take this directive seriously.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        The “no children” thing – IMO that can be a big thing – maybe a trigger for female defection – I don’t know.

        I got some attention here from a much younger recently married woman. She’s honestly pretty smokin’ as guys would say. I am just not very good looking and am not a natural charmer – at all. I’m a cubical rat – not high status around here. There’s no freakin way I merit this attention based on my level of attractiveness.

        This girl talked about having a baby after marriage – then she tells me now they may not. I see a lot of guys who won’t get their young wives pregnant and I have seen it cause problems. I don’t know if balding janitor dude had kids but I tell you a family man can be very alluring for some women when their man won’t impregnate them. This shouldn’t be surprising – they are wired to have babies. The dad thing has attraction value to many women. I am assuming this is not offensive to say – apologies if it is.

        I am not saying babies are the secret sauce to marital happiness. But notice the three very happy marriages are fecund. Is it strange to think that when women are detached from this very natural and instinctive purpose, they sometimes go a little wacky?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        I announced from the start— way back before we were even dating — that I did not want kids. And further that I would never want kids.

        Just out of curiosity; what made you think that way? And, what changed your mind? Because that doesn’t sound like you at all.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Oscar

        I came of age believing (like most everyone else) that marriage is about finding your soul mate, falling in love and living happily ever after.

        Kids struck me as nothing but a pain. The whole time I was married, if I wanted to go do something- ride my motorcycle, go camping, take my wife to a movie, go to the gun range I just walked out the door.

        I never really even liked kids. Heck, I still find other people’s kids mostly annoying.

        Let’s face it. There ARE trade offs. I was just not willing to accept those at the time.

        I know it makes me sound like a horrible person.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Jack:

        “Yes, having children IS a central missive of a Christian marriage. NovaSeeker’s point is that it is not unique to Christianity.”

        Yes, there’s overlap between Christian marriage (the traditional kind) and natural/pagan marriage because of the Natural Law (alluded to by St. Paul in Romans and formalized in some of the high churches e.g. Catholicism).

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        Let’s face it. There ARE trade offs. I was just not willing to accept those at the time.

        I agree that there are trade offs. I haven’t taken a real vacation in years, because I can’t afford it.

        So, what made you willing to accept the trade offs?

        I know it makes me sound like a horrible person.

        Nah. Maybe a little selfish, but most of us are selfish when we’re young. That’s why most of us need marriage and kids to sanctify that selfishness out of us.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      “(…that came later, he became the “total package” + sweet wife = ideal marriage). That woman must have been extremely hypergamous in the bux part of the equation. I wonder how you can screen for that? Pick a low ambition woman, pick a woman from a religious but modest achieving home?”

      Cameron —

      But the point is that (1) he didn’t “screen” for that in his second wife and (2) he wouldn’t have met his second wife by playing by the rules.

      That is the point. You can’t make it about “screening better”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        CAMERON,SCOTT&NOVASEEKER is this song’s lyrics wrong?
        I want to make a MILLION dollars,I want to live out by the sea,have a husband &children,Yeah I guess, I wanna have a family!?from 1984!This dos’nt decscribe the women your talking about?As they don’t look at your face&don’t think of men as human with their mind on the money instead!Private sacred prostitute!
        P.S.See the name?

        Liked by 1 person

    • lastholdout says:

      Many today hold the man responsible for his wife’s behavior and countenance –her character. In error, they hold the man to a standard of delivering certain emotional and relational tokens before she assumes her prudent behavior and biblical countenance. In contrast, Proverbs 19:14 suggests that the quality of a woman being prudent is from God: “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers, and a prudent wife is from the LORD.” They place on the man a responsibility that belongs to God—it is an impossible feat. Matthew Henry provides insightful perspective of the prudent wife of this Proverb:

      “A discreet and virtuous wife is a choice gift of God’s providence to a man: A wife that is prudent, in opposition to one that is contentious, ver. 13. For though a wife that is continually finding fault, may think it is her wit and wisdom to be so, it is really her folly; a prudent wife is meek and quiet, and makes the best of every thing. If a man has such a wife, let him not ascribe it to the wisdom of his own choice, or his own management, for the wisest have been deceived, both in and by a woman, but let him ascribe it to the goodness of God, who made him a help meet for him, and, perhaps by some hits and turns of providence, that seemed casual brought her to him. Every creature is what He makes it. Happy marriages we are sure are made in heaven.”

      Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      There have been Duggar daughters that have defected

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “There have been Duggar daughters that have defected”

        From their husbands? They’ve divorced their husband?

        I don’t mean defected from Papa Jim Bob’s teaching on wearing pants.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Not divorced. That would still be too scandalous for them, as a lot of their fame comes from being associated with the church community

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Re: Duggar girls:

        Aligning themselves with their husbands rather than continuing to obey their father after marriage hardly qualifies as “defected”.

        If what I have read is correct, it seems as if Daddy Duggar wanted to keep a much larger influence in the lives of the girls even after they were married. A particular daughter’s husband wanted to move away for a job but Jim Bob had the girl -without her knowledge supposedly- locked into some kind of TLC contract that would make it nigh impossible for the young man to take his wife and move.

        One thing I took away from the whole bit (I am way out of date on the latest) is that, Daddy Duggar didn’t take into account that the men might want something a little different for their lives than perpetual Duggar-ness. If he wanted men he could keep under his thumb, he messed up. I think that’s a good thing, but…

        No wife can submit to both her father and her husband. One master, not two. And of course most young men, even Christian ones, are a little more liberal than the dads of the girls. Even Jasmine Baucham (can’t remember her married name at present) is showing signs of egalitarian thinking. That is so, so far from her father, Voddie Baucham*. But if her husband is on board, has she really defected?

        *(I’ve heard him preach in person very recently. He has not moved to the left, not even a little bit).

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        You have not heard wrong about Jim and his certain in-law.

        Most people think he is out of the picture after the scandal. Not true. Jim bob still had control over the daughters show, and their agents.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        JB still has a ton of influence of what his SIL do, because 1 – he has complete control over the TLC contracts, and their access to the Christian media that promote them
        2- if they completely dissociated from daddy, it would be losing everyone they ever knew, including their siblings.

        No marriage in the US features a wife who walks away from her family completely.

        The SILs come from that clique/cult, meaning Jim bob still has influence over them.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        No, a woman doesn’t completely leave her family behind. But she cannot live in submission to two men, Lexet.

        To try and do so is not only anti-Biblical, but an exercise in futility along with an introduction to chaos.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        By the way, I had zero problem with alliances when I got married. None.

        But then I had a father who strongly believed in a wife submitting to her husband in everything and he would never interfere with that. Even if he disagreed with something SAM decided to do, he stayed out, and he directed my stepmother to keep her trap shut about it as well. Not their job to tell another man how to run his house.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Not divorced.

        Okay. So, what do you mean by “defected”, then?

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Don’t bow down to daddy or daddy’s cult

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Don’t bow down to daddy or daddy’s cult

        But, they’re not supposed to “bow down to daddy or daddy’s cult”. They’re supposed to submit to their husbands. How does submitting to their husbands = “defecting”? That’s what I don’t understand.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        1 spoke out against the abuse in the household. It was incredibly brave, because she was cut off from the cult.

        It had nothing to do with following her husband

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I agree on your argument about what is biblical. The thing is with that family and many communities in the ozarks is that they don’t care about what scripture says, they care about power and influence. Hence the disproportionate number of home churches in that region.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I think I’m the one who used “defected” originally in this thread. I think I meant that despite what I see as weirdness (the celebrity-Baptist thing) so far the girls seem to have successful marriages. More successful than average Christians. So far as I know the girls (or the daughters-in-law) haven’t divorced or done the girls-gone-wild thing. So doing something right compared to mainstream Christians even if it’s the membership-in-the-cult thing.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Lexet

        I’m not up on Duggar gossip, so pardon my ignorance, but I’m confused. First, you wrote:

        There have been Duggar daughters that have defected

        That’s “daughters”, as in plural. Then you wrote:

        1 spoke out against the abuse in the household. It was incredibly brave, because she was cut off from the cult.

        That’s “1”, as in singular. So, which is it? Plural, or singular?

        It had nothing to do with following her husband

        If she spoke out with her husband’s approval, then by definition, she submitted to her husband. Do you have any evidence that she spoke out without her husband’s approval?

        @ Cameron

        I think I meant that despite what I see as weirdness (the celebrity-Baptist thing) so far the girls seem to have successful marriages. More successful than average Christians. So far as I know the girls (or the daughters-in-law) haven’t divorced or done the girls-gone-wild thing. So doing something right compared to mainstream Christians even if it’s the membership-in-the-cult thing.

        Again, I’m no expert on Duggar gossip, but if the daughters, and daughters-in-law are submitting to their husbands, then I don’t understand where the idea that they’re “defecting” comes from.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        In response to the confusion about what the word “Defect” means, it is a verb used to mean a type of game strategy in which the person chooses to betray a partner because it offers a greater reward than cooperating with him. All purely rational self-interested players would betray the other, and so the only possible outcome for two purely rational players is for them to betray each other. This was discussed in two posts.
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2021/03/03/game-theory-110-the-prisoners-game/
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2021/03/17/strategies-for-the-iterated-prisoners-dilemma/

        Liked by 1 person

  3. feeriker says:

    Churches are in total denial about this conundrum, as I have written before. Pastors and elders won’t address the issue because they are afraid to condemn a common social norm that violates doctrine.

    As long as churchianity remains the prevailing substitute for Christianity, this will not change. Churchianity, being a model based ultimately on humanism, and by extension utilitarianism and expediency, cannot, because of its very nature, confront or solve conundrums that pit the tenets of the faith against the ways of the world and the flesh. Because it fears [wo]man more than it fears God, the world and the flesh win any confrontation by default.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    And he rides back to his farm with pride!Of course,SFCTON is right on this issue!The only advice I ever give ole’ day-time nurses is to ”carry on” as if we we’re in england or something!

    Like

  5. Pingback: Finding Each Other – Cornerstone

  6. Rock Kitaro says:

    Excellent essay. I have so much to catch up with your content! One thing that struck a chord with me is the church’s unwillingness to point out the problem. Recently…with Ravi Zacharias’s passing and the subsequent scandal involving his sexual infidelity…It’s kinda sad but I noticed even with him, as much as he brought thought-provoking insights into the Gospels, when it came to the Q&A sessions, whenever a female asked about things like homosexuality, transsexuals, or how they felt the Bible was oppressive to women…so many times, Ravi provided an appeasing watered down answer that sounded nice, while skirting around the plain and obvious truth.

    And I get it. They say that “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”…unfortunately today’s modern society do care about feelings. It seems they care more about feelings than logic, reason, truth and even justice. Ravi’s ministry organization admitted to the accusations and they’re closing. A lot of pastors and Christian speakers like John MacArthur are speaking out about this.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Jack says:

    Cameron listed three commonalities with successful marriages (even those that started in sin and without proper screening or planning).
    1-The marriage is open to (better if enthusiastic for) having children.
    2-The woman wants to be (primarily) a wife and mother rather than a careerist.
    3-There was evident attraction from the woman directed towards the man from the get-go. (i.e. Scott’s axiom).

    This mirrors conclusions I have made in the past, that marriage is (or should be) about sex (largely dependent on point 3, since women are “gatekeepers” of sex) and having children (point 1), and that it needs to have a Headship structure (implied in the combination of points 2 and 3). Also, point 2 requires the woman’s decided rejection of any self-centered personal ambitions, such as the Feminist Life Script or riding the CC. Point 3 and early marriage discourages the latter.
    Also, a woman’s N count sharply erodes point 3 and could affect point 1 (e.g. extended family, paternity fraud, etc.), which is why virginity and chastity are important.

    This also explains why many non-Christians have successful marriages and many Christians do not, as I wrote about in Friday’s post.

    I am coming to the conclusion that there is a misconception about what “Christian” truly means in regard to dating and marriage. To wit, we have the notion that a Christian marriage requires two chaste, professing Christians being properly married in a certain kind of church, complete with public vows and golden rings and the rubber stamps of the church and state. You may choose between lillies or roses, and rice or confetti. But all these things are rather superficial. In reality, the collection of factors I listed above (Cameron’s 3 points with my extensions) is what truly constitutes a “Christian” marriage (or what should be touted as a Christian marriage). Here, the adjective “Christian” in front of “marriage” carries the meaning that it glorifies God, fulfills His purposes for marriage, and establishes a sanctified home environment that is conducive to the emotional security and spiritual vitality of the family.

    This is what determines whether the marriage is successful, and not the mere absence of divorce.

    This is more in line with what Christianity is about, and not white dresses and pipe organs.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Scott says:

      I would say that using this calculus it makes you wonder.

      Throughout history, how much did it matter (the ceremony, legal status and paper)

      And even in most contexts today. In the military you cannot sign your spouse up for benefits, I get it.

      You can’t sign them up for health insurance at work.

      But if I walk into a church, or social situation and announce “I’m Scott, and this is my wife, Mychael” it is a given that it is true. No one asks me to prove it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • My reply:

      https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2021/03/02/what-makes-a-christian-marriage-successful/

      Basically, the Bible shows us this all along. We just didn’t study it enough in depth to realize it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “@Jack: “Also, a woman’s N count sharply erodes point 3 and could affect point 1 (e.g. extended family, paternity fraud, etc.), which is why virginity and chastity are important.”

      Yes. Lori Alexander has a good post up that includes testimonials from women (and a few from men) about the effects of lack of virginity/chastity. Here’s one:

      “It created an emotional separation basically from sex itself. It’s more of just an act for me than a true connection.”

      Here’s a problem. The non-virgin risks losing emotional connection inherent in sex. That means her desire for/enjoyment of sex is completely dependent on her raw attraction to her husband and the problem with female hypergamic-visceral-attraction. So, my comments here about women being marginally attracted or not attracted to their beta hubby and the resulting problems from lack of sex or coldfish “duty” sex given resentfully.

      Another testimony:

      “Having the memories of past lovers. It would have been a satisfying accomplishment to have been a virgin on my wedding night, but because of fornication, I robbed myself of that.”

      Alpha widows + the aforementioned lack of emotional connection during sex.

      Another:

      “I would say this is my biggest regret in life. God created sex for husband and wife, and it isn’t meant to be shared with anyone else. When you share it, it looses its exclusivity. You almost make yourself less ‘special’ if that makes sense.”

      It has to be “special” for her to enjoy it – this is less a problem for men.

      “It ruined my view of sex in my marriage for a long time. It affected how I saw my husband for a while too. I treated him like the horrible men from my past that I had no business being with in the first place.”

      You’re Beta Bob – she gave to another man what was rightfully yours and now she projects her resentment at Alpha Chad onto you.

      Another:

      “Oh, man. I wish I had never done it before marriage. It’s awful. Sometimes my past experiences are triggered while I am with my husband, and it’s almost as if I’m letting someone else into our own private bedroom or our own private love and life.”

      Female fornication isn’t literally adultery but has many of the same psychological and spiritual effects.

      https://thetransformedwife.com/virginity-is-a-patriarchal-concept/

      Liked by 3 people

  8. thedeti says:

    There isn’t really a workable solution for Christians, unless they, as a community, elect to be entirely counter cultural and play that out. It CAN work in those situations, where the woman is actually motivated by God and the fear of Him, enough to separate herself from the central importance of sexual satisfaction that the culture blares at her all day every day. But these are few and far between. They are outliers of outliers. They are not the basis of a culture, but of a micro-subculture – one that the vast majority of Christian men are unlikely to find.

    This really is the crux of the issue. If you want a Christian marriage, husband and wife both have to understand their faith, be serious about living that faith and walking it out, and have the personal character to live and walk it out. And that does mean a few very hard things. It means both of them must tune out the rest of the world and build a spiritual wall around their marriage. They must resolve to keep that wall in good repair all the time.

    They must resolve to take their faith seriously as the underpinning of their lives, separately and together. It means lives of self sacrifice. It means they will probably lose friends. It means they will each have to address and come to terms with major disappointments in their marriages. By this I mean each of them will have to deal with the fact that there will be something they had wanted from their marriage or a life with their spouse, but they will NEVER get that thing because their spouse is incapable of offering or being it despite best efforts. Sometimes they will have to do without things they really need. Sometimes they will have to deal with an obstinate spouse. They may have to deal with poor to nonexistent sex. They may have to deal with hostile family members. They may be infertile. They may be isolated from family and friends, or each other. Money may be so tight there will be no extras, sometimes for a long time.

    They will have to deal with the changes that occur over the course of the marriage. I have had two major changes in my life, and Mrs. deti has had one. And more are coming. They have to deal with marital stresses, which aren’t always a bad thing.

    Before I married, I wish someone had really sat me down and told me how hard marriage can be. A married person has to do some very difficult and painful things sometimes. A married person many times must bear up under some very weighty burdens and heavy responsibilities. A married person must sometimes make extremely hard decisions in which someone – or everyone – will lose. Someone will not get something they want or need. Someone will have to do without. Someone will have to do more. And those things can put enormous stresses on a marriage.

    A married couple determined to do this is essentially going it alone. It is just the two of them. They will get no help from anyone or anything in fortifying their marriage. Their marriage, and the two of them individually, are constantly under attack – even from their own families, churches, and clergy.

    Mrs. deti’s sister is getting ready to divorce her husband (after 29 years of marriage!), and I am watching this situation VERY closely. I’m very concerned about this, not for my sister in law, but for Mrs. deti and for me.

    The problems here are well known. Marriage 2.0 is not about rearing children or providing the locus and situ for sexual conduct. Marriage 2.0 is about the personal fulfillment and satisfaction of the woman. This is pretty much what Christian marriage is now as well. Christians’ expectations are as high as secular nonChristians’ expectations are, so high as to be unreasonable, with almost no voices of reason. Christians don’t want to do all the things in this comment. And everyone, including the church, tells them they don’t have to.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ Deti

      A married couple determined to do this is essentially going it alone. It is just the two of them. They will get no help from anyone or anything in fortifying their marriage. Their marriage, and the two of them individually, are constantly under attack – even from their own families, churches, and clergy.

      There’s a reason why marriage ceremonies take place in front of witnesses. The reason is not to give the bride her “princess day”. The reason is in the vows (I realize that’s not the case with Orthodox Christians). The witnesses – everyone attending the wedding – are supposed to hold the couple to their vows, because we all need that kind of admonition sometimes.

      When Bob complains to his best man, John, that Sally isn’t the woman he married anymore, and he’s being tempted by Heather at HR, John is supposed to say, “dude, I get it, but you said ‘forsaking all others’, and ‘for better of for worse, ’til death do us part’. I was there, man.”

      When Sally complains to her maid of honor, Jenny, that Bob isn’t meeting whatever potential she thought he should, and Kevin at accounting is starting to look good, Jenny is supposed to say, “I hear what you’re saying, but you said ‘forsaking all others’, and ‘for richer or for poorer, ’til death do us part’. I was there.”

      We’re not meant to do this marriage thing alone. That’s why the requirements for pastors and deacons in Titus and Timothy include a solid marriage and a well-governed household. That’s also why St. Paul commanded Titus to command the older women of the church to teach the younger women to love their husbands, love their children, etc.

      There’s supposed to be a structure around each marriage that holds couples together during the “worse”, “sickness”, and “poorer” times, and punishes the spouses that detonate marriages for unbiblical reasons.

      But, that requires an actual community.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        The reason we (Orthodox) Christians don’t do vows is because marriage isn’t something two people do to each other.

        God does.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        I get that, and frankly, it’s pretty cool.

        The principle of community structure doesn’t change, though, just the method. In the Orthodox case, it seems to me that the community would tell the couple “God united you. What God united let no man separate, not even you.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        When Sally complains to her maid of honor, Jenny, that Bob isn’t meeting whatever potential she thought he should, and Kevin at accounting is starting to look good, Jenny is supposed to say, “I hear what you’re saying, but you said ‘forsaking all others’, and ‘for richer or for poorer, ’til death do us part’. I was there.”
        …….

        A woman correcting another woman is pure fantasy land

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        When we do, 99 times out of 100 we lose the friendship. And they don’t just walk away, but they inflict pain and lie about you.

        Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        Thankfully, I can honestly say that this has not been my experience. Not that it has never happened (it has), but on balance my Christian female friends receive admonition or correction with lots of grace, and sometimes even gratitude.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        The herd is anti policing

        It’s probably best for a man if his woman doesn’t have a lot of friends

        Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Ame

        When we do, 99 times out of 100 we lose the friendship. And they don’t just walk away, but they inflict pain and lie about you.

        Yep. That’s why community is necessary. Community ostracism of the unrepentant (Matt 18, 1 Cor 5) has to be a real threat. Otherwise, it rarely works.

        Liked by 3 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Before I got married I wish someone told me how one-sided that contract is and what not

      Liked by 3 people

  9. thedeti says:

    Off topic:

    I feel abnormal and rare, though I come from a supposedly “normal” background.

    I know so few people like me. My parents both grew up in an intact home, their parents’ marriages ending when their fathers died.

    My parents got married in 1967. It was a first marriage for both. Neither brought any children to the marriage.

    After they married, they then had their children. They had my two sisters and me. We are the only children they ever had. I had no stepsiblings or half-siblings.

    My dad was the breadwinner and went to work, and was such for the entire duration of his working life. My mom was a housewife until I was about 12, and then she went back to odd jobs like working at our church and substitute teaching (she was trained as an elementary education teacher).

    My parents remained married to each other and raised all of their children, who lived with them. I grew up in a single family detached house. I lived with my dad, my mom, and my sisters. We were a nuclear family of five – one man legally married to one woman living with and rearing their son and their two daughters. We are all biologically related and all had the same last name (Dad’s). I had no stepparents or stepgrandparents.

    My sisters and I all lived with Mom and Dad until we were able to support ourselves. Then we moved out and made our own homes, separately.

    My parents are still married to each other and have been for 53 years.

    I formed the same type of family. Mrs deti and I married. First and only marriage for both. Neither brought children to the marriage. I am the breadwinner, Mrs. deti was an el ed teacher who became a housewife and SAHM when our first was born and she remained such for 18 years. We have two children. We are a nuclear family of four: one man legally married to one woman living with and rearing their son and their daughter, all living in one single family detached home, all biologically related and all with the same last name (mine). My children will live with us until they can live on their own. Mrs. deti and I are still married. My children have no step-anything.

    I had the most “normal” Christian upbringing you can have. No family drama. No divorces. No step-anything. How it’s “supposed to be”.

    Mrs. deti came from the same background – no divorces. No stepfamilies. Lived with parents who were and still are married to each other. Normal. Christian. How it is “supposed to be”.

    And I still ended up here.

    Liked by 6 people

    • feeriker says:

      Your early life story is essentially the same as mine: I came from an “Ozzie and Harriet” family.” So did both parents (although Dad’s siblings, my aunt and uncle, were both train wrecks for some reason). Dad married to Mom, and only ever to Mom (and she only ever to Dad), for almost 53 years until his death. My younger brother, despite being married to a train wreck of a wife, has managed to remain married to her for nearly 40 years, marrying her right after they both graduated high school.

      I aspired to the same thing as my parents and my brother, to stay married to one woman for life, but never had any instruction on how to do this. Even as society was starting to unravel during my formative years, to the point where broken homes among my peers, while certainly not the norm like they are today, were not uncommon, my parents STILL didn’t think “armor through instruction” was necessary. Not having forged that “armor” would turn out to be a deadly weakness for me (and very nearly for my brother), as I ultimately –too late– came to realize that the SMP and MMP of my generation was an excursion into a lion’s den for which I was wholly unprepared. I don’t suppose I can really blame my parents completely, tempting as the urge is to do so. The SMP and MMP had changed so radically between their generation and mine and my brother’s, and my parents out of both markets for so long (and they being far from worldly people) that they wouldn’t have had the first clue how to help either me or my brother forge the “armor” we needed to guard our hearts and souls. In the end we both were severely wounded by lion[esse]s, my wounds being fatal to my first marriage.

      It’s horrifying to ponder how the “normal” that is essential to the stable and healthy marriage that you and I both grew up with is now considered to be not only ABnormal, but even harmful by some influential elements of the culture. Going into the lion’s den (the SMP and MMP) unarmed, untrained, and vulnerable is considered not only normal, but essential for young people today. Caligula and Nero would laugh with delight at the prospect, although I have a hard time understanding why loving parents would ever want to play those two roles to their children.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        I don’t suppose I can really blame my parents completely, tempting as the urge is to do so. The SMP and MMP had changed so radically between their generation and mine and my brother’s, and my parents out of both markets for so long (and they being far from worldly people) that they wouldn’t have had the first clue how to help either me or my brother forge the “armor” we needed to guard our hearts and souls. In the end we both were severely wounded by lion[esse]s, my wounds being fatal to my first marriage.

        This happened to quite a few people in my generation. It really was dependent on (1) the kind of people your parents were (worldly or sheltered) and (2) how old they were. My parents were old for my generation (M was 37, D was 46 when I came along), so their experiences were the mating market in 1950s small town Catholic Europe, and not 1990s coastal blue metro hypereducated people. It was not just a difference in degree, it was like some kind of parallel universe that was utterly strange to them and incomprehensible. Young women were behaving in ways that my mother, even to this day, does not understand (my generation of women I mean), because they do not fit into her generation’s “categories” of “woman type”. I was prepared a lot by my parents, but the information was useless — it was about how to avoid Golddigger type women, mostly, which was never any issue for me whatsoever. The way that actually well-raised, Christian, educated, “good” girls were behaving was utterly foreign to them, as was the emerging class barrier in mating. They were totally mystified, and I can’t blame them … the world I was dealing with was not only different from what they had only a few decades earlier, but it was a kind of thing that humanity had never experienced before. Hard to prepare for that.

        The guys in my age range who had slightly (2-4 years) older sisters fared a bit better. That, too, was dependent on who your sister was. If you had a sister who was in any way popular with boys, they did get a bit of an inside look at the situation in a way that someone like me did not. Also the people whose parents were younger (say in their 20s when they had the kids, so in their later 30s by the time we were hitting the market) did better, as were the ones with more worldly parents who were more hip to the emergent culture.

        Bad time to be going through the mating process. It’s been bad now for the last 50 years I guess, and if anything seems to be getting worse.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        Feeriker:

        I grew up in a little small town in the midwest. The people I grew up with, I have known since I was 5 years old. We went through the public school system in our little town. All of us together.

        I would say that 75% of their parents are still married or remained so until one of them died. It was quite the scandal in the rare event when a set of parents in that town separated and divorced. Bear in mind these are people born in the late 1930s to around 1950, and marrying in the mid to late 1960s, nearly all the women married by age 25 and nearly all the men married by age 30. These parents are now in their 70s and 80s.

        Of those my age plus or minus 4 years, taking us to the beginning and middle of Gen X (birth years 1964-1972):

        Around 90% married at least once. Of those, probably 45% have been divorced at least once. Around 20% of that 45% have been married and divorced more than once. I know one man my age (52 years old) who is currently married to his fourth wife.

        Interestingly, a large percentage of them have not remarried – I would guess a good 40% of that divorced 45% have never remarried following divorce.

        A large percentage of these people have died. My unscientific sample of people aged 48 to 56 has around 10% of people now deceased. That’s one of every 10 people i’ve known in that age range. I think that’s a high death rate for people who haven’t made it to age 60.

        The point is that there was a very, very large jump in divorces among my age cohort when compared with their own parents.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. Elspeth says:

    I think Oscar is right, that there are patterns which empirically show a relatively reliable path to marital success. One of the big problems of our era is that the definition of marital success has been completely overhauled by our atomized and individualism obsessed culture. So much so, that you might be hard pressed to find a consensus among a small number of Christians (say, 50) that agree on what a successful marriage looks like. “Not divorced” won’t cut it anymore, and endurance? Who wants to endure something so easy to escape from when happiness is calling?

    Like Scott, I broke all the rules. Most of you know the details so I’ll not waste time typing them out.

    Unlike Deti, I came from a background with a fair degree of marital chaos. Death separated my parents, and death separated my dad and stepmom, but neither of those happy marriages were my father’s first marriage. So I have half siblings and step siblings as well as full siblings, nine total (all either divorced, never married or struggling to keep it together, except us). Yet somehow, I absorbed a clear and unambiguous understanding o lifelong, patriarchal marriage.

    My husband, on the other hand, came from a legacy of “till death do us part” marriages, on both sides. Were they perfect? Nope, but they endured so he had no expectation of anything different. His brothers absorbed some of those imperfect habits, but unlike my late MIL, they all married women who weren’t having it, so we are the only couple still standing. This, even though he was the only one of the Agent Men who brought an OOW child into his marriage.

    We enjoy each other a great deal, in every way and in almost any circumstance, but I cannot tell anyone how this happened. I have tried and the ability to translate it fails me. We really, truly should have been doomed. Or at least struggling. Dealing with a husband’s ex (or ex’s) for 18 years has caused a fair amount of drama in every marriage we know that have had to deal with it. But somehow… not us, at least after the first two or three years. SAM set hard boundaries relatively early on, held to them, and made it easy for me to feel secure.

    But, to circle back (LOL) around to Oscar’s point. Our firm conviction,which we have translated to our children, is that we are not to be emulated. We are just two extremely fortunate souls whose outcome is so exceptional, it should never be taken as a model for anything. Their best bet is to be pure, and to marry men who have also been pure. To value chaste men, grateful for their lack of baggage and potentially destructive experiences.

    The fact that we, in all fallen natures, are fairly stupid in this regard is no excuse not to override that part of your understanding. Think long term.

    As always, I add that despite empirical evidence, there is God’s incomparable grace and the possibility of beauty arising from what should only be a pile of ashes. It’s not an unrealistic or impossible assertion. A cursory reading of Scripture reveals that God almost always used flawed, dysfunctional people to accomplish His ends and bring glory to His name.

    Lastly, formulas are a horrible place to our faith when it comes to matters of the human heart. Life is too messy, and people are too messy. Doing what’s right because God commands it, because it’s right, might not yield the abundant temporal harvest we desire (see Ton, Scott, Nova, et al). So expecting God to bless us with a bliss-filled marriage as payment for good behavior is quite foolish. We have agency, and a role to play in having a happy marriage.

    Also, it takes two to tango.

    Liked by 5 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      ELSPETH
      Your right it takes two tango!
      Hence why people don’t get why I’m not getting up with any woman who shows even
      mild interest in myself!
      I still wish I&my first girl would have never been split up!
      Broken heart to this day!
      Does anyone think I beleave ”its better to have loved than never loved at all”?
      I have been mostly living in depression over this since early ’86!
      Over a month from now it will be 35 years I have felt like this!
      But all is well if you can get IOI’S?No!I’m living proof its not true!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      … there are patterns which empirically show a relatively reliable path to marital success.

      Similarly, the strongest corelating factor for success in life is if a child’s bio parents were married, and stayed married. But, every single time you say that in public – every single time – some “smart” person will respond with…

      “Nu-uh! I know a guy who’s parents are still married, and his life is a trainwreck!”

      … or …

      “Nu-uh! I know a woman who never knew her father, and she’s the most successful person I know!”

      What can mere mortals do in the face of such adamantine obtuseness?

      Lastly, formulas are a horrible place to our faith when it comes to matters of the human heart. Life is too messy, and people are too messy. Doing what’s right because God commands it, because it’s right, might not yield the abundant temporal harvest we desire (see Ton, Scott, Nova, et al).

      That brings us back to another comment I made about the limits of reason. There are too many variables for us to predict the consequences, so we obey our Lord, and leave the consequences in His hands.

      Liked by 4 people

  11. Scott says:

    ”Not divorced” won’t cut it anymore, and endurance? Who wants to endure something so easy to escape from when happiness is calling?

    Yep. It was a simple argument that could not be defended against.

    “Sure I believed ‘til death do us part’ at the time. But I don’t believe it should mean a life prison sentence of being with the wrong person.”

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: The Simpsons and God, by Devon Stack.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. feeriker says:

    Our firm conviction,which we have translated to our children, is that we are not to be emulated. We are just two extremely fortunate souls whose outcome is so exceptional, it should never be taken as a model for anything.

    I have to disagree with you, Elspeth, in the sense that you and SAM are an example to look up to as an ideal example of what should be, and what a Christian couple should aspire to. That said, I think you’re right in the sense that no one else should strive to copy and emulate the exact “recipe” for your success as a couple. That can’t be done, as the chemistry in each marriage is unique to the individual couple. That’s something else that I think a lot of people miss when striving to forge a “successful” marriage.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Elspeth says:

      I appreciate your reply, Freeriker. Thanks. I do think we have something to offer based on the past 20 years we’ve shared together. And we try to do that as opportunity permits.

      When it comes to routes to the altar? The whole thing was pretty train wreck-ish, even by secular standards. That is what I would never advocate emulating.

      O/T: it’s my day to monitor study hall at my kids school (twice a week classical Christian school mainly to help is homeschoolers stay sane and ordered). Reading this is helping me stay awake, 😂. So I appreciate the distraction. I’m not used to this much silence even in church.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Pingback: What makes a Christian marriage successful? | Christianity and masculinity

  15. LutherBot says:

    Hello, I am new here. I will not give out too many details about myself, but to get an idea of where I come from, I am probably younger than most of you and never have been married. I have gained much knowledge from reading about the Red Pill in both its secular and Christianized forms, and I have read a few articles on this blog (not all of them, so please forgive me if I bring up issues you have already addressed).

    I do not mean to condemn anyone, but I find this blog (while informative and enjoyable) overall to be – pathetic. Not in the sense that that it is bad, but in the sense that it offers a bleak prospect for Christ’s church, whom He loves and promises His blessings. When I read the Bible, I am much more refreshed, not just because it is the divine Word of God, but because it offers a much more triumphant picture than the one you present here, that of Christians being in a tumultuous sea of sexual and marital uncertainties and dangers. I do not want to be dismissive of the pains many of you have gone through – the Bible does say that marriages will not be without difficulties. I am sorry that you had to go through this. But there are some issues that I believe may not have been brought up which may shed some light on our social problems.

    You write:

    “The story of John and Nikole’s marriage and its aftermath is a harrowing one, because it illustrates two difficult truths to men:

    Vetting has limited benefits and no guarantees.
    Conforming to God’s outline of Christian living doesn’t necessarily have a sweet ending.
    You can meet a rather chaste woman (either of the virginal or “born again virgin” variety), or a woman who has some N count but isn’t, at the time, that focused on sexual vetting prior to marriage, because she has aligned with Christian values about sex and its proper value in life…

    And, for those of you who are reading this and saying to yourselves “well, you just need to vet harder”, I will state it again: Your wife can be n=0 from a religious family without divorce, no obvious red flags and … at some stage she just flips the script and decides she finally agrees with the cultural messaging, after all.”

    Since you bring up N counts, when you talk about “vetting”, you are primarily referring to the number of sexual partners your fiancée had before she marries you. This is very wise. However, when we look at Proverbs 31, it does not mention N-count at all. It describes the ideal woman. To make a list of some of these qualities, it says she: (1) works with her hands (2) works willingly (3) provides for people working for her (4) provides for her family (5) is industrious (6) strengthens her body (fitness) (7) is honorable (8) is not lazy (9) speaks wisely (10) speaks kindly (11) gives to the poor (12) fears the LORD. When we search the rest of the Bible, we find other desirable qualities like (13) prudent, (14) loving, and (15) silent in the church.

    To those divorced who think they “vetted” their wife before marrying her, my rhetorical question is: did you seriously inspect her for these qualities, which the Scripture actually gives? Or did you just believe your fiancée when she claimed to be a Christian?

    You bring up the case of Nikole Mitchell. It is true she came from a conservative Baptist family – but that really does not mean anything. Just because you come from a religiously devout family does not mean that you yourself are saved from your sins. I do not know all the details of her story, but the fact that she wanted to become a pastor, as a woman, should have been a huge warning that her “faith” was not really in line with the Bible. I cannot say for sure of course, but I am guessing there may have been at least some indicator that she did not really know Christ before her husband unfortunately married her.

    Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
    1 John 3:9

    This brings up a broader point. I briefly read over the testimonies of one of your contributors here – apparently, he transitioned from Eastern Orthodoxy, to the Campbellite Church of Christ, to Presbyterianism, to Roman Catholicism, and back to Eastern Orthodoxy. I do not mean to insult anyone’s denomination – I respect people’s decisions and beliefs, even if I may not agree with them. But I will point out this fact: the way of salvation taught by these denominations differs from one another. The Restorationists teach adult baptismal regeneration, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy teach salvation by pedobaptism and justification by grace and works, and Presbyterians have their own scheme of salvation (depending on what type of Presbyterian they are).

    So when you decry the apparent sexual and marital turmoil among most “Christians”, a good question to ask beforehand is: What type of gospel (way of salvation) was preached to these people? If these people heard the wrong gospel, then they are not real Christians, but still lost in their sins. It should be no surprise then that their marriages are wrecks – they cannot keep the commandments of God while living in an unsaved state. The Lord Jesus Christ came to deliver us from our sins – not just the penalty, but also its devilish power in our lives. He came to empower men and women to live purely, which means having faithful marriages. Obviously, no one is perfect – but when we see a huge mass of people who call themselves “Christians” engaging in adultery and divorce – you have to question whether they have been really born of God.

    There is a huge false gospel in the evangelical world. It is called “the Sinner’s Prayer.” It is the belief that “committing your life to Christ”, asking Jesus to come into your heart, or even asking Him to forgive your sins will save you. This is false – salvation has nothing to do with asking Jesus for anything. This is a subtle form of “works” salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9).

    The gospel is the good news of the Lord Jesus Christ and His payment for our sins by His death, burial, and resurrection. He paid for all our sins completely so that we could escape Hell and the Lake of Fire, which we rightfully deserve. If we desire to be saved, the Bible makes it simple for us. We must (1) repent – turn away from the sins in our hearts, admitting we are lost sinners who deserve God’s wrath for our sins and can do nothing to save ourselves, and (2) trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and His payment for our sins alone, not anything we do (including baptism, prayer, committing your life to Christ, religious works, church membership etc.) Once we penitently trust in Christ, the Bible says we are saved – “He who believes on the Son has everlasting life” (John 3:36).

    I am sorry, but the truth is that most churches will not present you the Gospel like this. Once again, I do not mean to disrespect anyone’s denomination, but Catholic, Orthodox, most Protestant, and sadly even most Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, do not preach this (again, Evangelicals substitute “the Sinner’s Prayer” for this.)

    And so, at least among Evangelicals, you wonder why they have such high divorce rates and adultery rates. I believe the reason is obvious: they have been taught a false gospel (just like the “Christians” of other denominations). Anyone who is relying on anything else, besides Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection alone, is still lost in his or her sins and cannot be expected to live purely by the standards which God requires. Unless we begin to deal with this and correct this, I do not believe we can expect to see any movement of God.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Reality on this earth is bleak. As God fearing men our reward is in the next life, not this one

      Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      You know what’s never been said/read before on these blogs?

      “If your marriage failed, its because you didn’t REALLY vet, and because you were taught the ‘wrong’ gospel.”

      Man, its so clear now. Guess we can close it up, Jack!

      Liked by 9 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ LutherBot

      when we look at Proverbs 31, it does not mention N-count at all.

      That’s kind of implied in the term “virtuous”.

      Stick around, kid. You might learn a thing or two. Try and be a tad less presumptuous.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        In biblical times only low value men would marry a non virgin who wasn’t a widow.

        Under the law, n=0 was presumed due to the prohibitions against fornication.

        Like

    • Gunner Q says:

      “I do not mean to condemn anyone, but I find this blog… overall to be – pathetic.”

      “I am sorry, but the truth is that most churches will not present you the Gospel like this. Once again, I do not mean to disrespect anyone’s denomination, but…”

      I don’t mean to disrespect you, LutherBot you lying piece of passive-aggressive sh#t, but you’re a false Christian with nothing to contribute.

      You do know what the Sinner’s Prayer is, right? Luke 18:9-14? Maybe you should read it again.

      Liked by 6 people

      • LutherBot says:

        God bless you, Gunner.

        A few notes:

        When you look up the word “pathetic”, there are two definitions that pop up. One means “causing pity”; the other means “miserably inadequate.” I specified that I meant the former and not the latter.

        As for “passive aggressiveness” – I really do not see anything wrong with this. I have strong opinions that I assert, which probably will rub people the wrong way (aggressive). On the other hand, I still think it is possible to respect people who have different beliefs than me, so I qualify my statements to reflect this (passivity). A balance is struck between both. Passive aggressiveness.

        Your response perfectly proves my point. You use profanity against me, a man who has never done you wrong and a man whom you have never met, and falsely accuse me of being a fake Christian. This is the rotten “fruit” of “salvation” through the “Sinner’s Prayer.” What of the love that the Son of God commanded His followers to have towards their enemies?

        What about His warning, “That every idle word that men shall speak [e.g, cursing], they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment?” (Matthew 12:36)

        If you cannot even keep Christ’s commandments to love your enemies, to love your Christian brethren, and to control your tongue – why would you expect other “Christians” to abide by the marital standards God requires?

        I looked at the reference you gave. The last verse says “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other.” (Luke 18:14). You are correct – the publican in this parable prayed a “Sinner’s Prayer.” But if we examine the whole of Scripture – which is the correct way to interpret it – we read that, at the very least in a Pauline sense, it is faith that justifies, not prayer (Romans 4:5) – it is a little ironic for a Protestant not to understand this. Prayer is only an outward expression of one’s faith inside his heart. I am not saying it is necessarily wrong to say it, but faith in the prayer, rather than faith in Christ directly, does not save, which is the vast trap that many people fall into. Historically, the “Sinner’s Prayer” has been used by Evangelicals starting around the beginning of the twentieth century. I do not believe people like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, or George Whitefield ever used it.

        It would be best for you to repent of your sins, including your cursing and pride, and trust in the Son of God alone, who loved you enough to shed His blood on the cross for your sins, be buried, and rise from the dead three days later. He paid for all your sins so you could escape hell.

        Like

    • I agree with some of what you say, but you lost me at cheap grace being one of the biggest issues. Churchians are going to churchian. The first churchians were in John 6 when many of Jesus’ disciples deserted Him at the time. It’s no surprise that churchians are going to not obey God and their divorce rates will look like the world.

      Proverbs 31 is a solid list of qualities that will generally lead to a trajectory of success, but you’re missing one of the big ones. The actual Biblical marital roles and responsibilities.

      Just did a write up about it here:

      https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2021/03/02/vetting-is-for-identifying-red-flags-from-past-behavior-future-behavior-needs-biblical-solutions/

      Like

      • LutherBot says:

        Would you be able to explain to me the difference between “cheap grace” and a “churchian” (what is that)? Thank you.

        Like

      • @ Luther

        Would you be able to explain to me the difference between “cheap grace” and a “churchian” (what is that)? Thank you.

        Church = bride of Christ

        Churchian = common Christian manosphere term to denote those who play church.

        The typical way it is used as a manosphere term encompasses much of the Church’s capitulation to the culture by blaming men for everything whereas women are angels and can do no wrong. In other words, their “church” is no different from the culture.

        Generally, it’s a broad umbrella term and can encompass all the varying people who are there to play their own version of church as opposed to follow Jesus: cheap grace, are Sunday only Christians, those who think they are a Christian cause they are a good person or because their family is a Christian or they grew up in the Church, etc.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Maybe the short definition should be the Protestant version of nominal catholic identity

        Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      In OT times, if a woman was married off to a man, and it was discovered she wasn’t a virgin, she would be put to death on her fathers doorstep.

      Priests were expressly forbidden from marrying non virgins (why hosea was so scandalous).

      Like

  16. Ed Hurst says:

    There’s something missing for me in the comments above. It’s not about the rules; they help, but they are simply a manifestation of something deeper. My successful marriage wasn’t about the rules. I followed my convictions and God supplied my need. It was a miracle. I broke some of your suggested rules because I tend to see through the rules to the divine moral purpose. I knew I had a divine calling and that steered every choice. I’ve made mistakes and I accept them as the consequences of faith that needs to grow. I’ve always lived as an alien on this earth; marriage was just a part of that.

    Liked by 5 people

  17. Scott says:

    Deti? Got that? The reason your wife became a ball-busting unrelenting nag who has made your life a groundhog day of marital misery for this last decade-plus? You failed to apply proverbs to your fiance correctly. Plus, wrong gospel.

    Dumbass.

    Novaseeker? Random Angeleno? Everybody tracking?

    Liked by 7 people

    • Oscar says:

      I’ll own up to it. I failed to vet properly. I can trace every marital problem my wife caused to a red flag that I either ignored, or didn’t realize was a red flag, and I suspect she could say the same about every marital problem I caused.

      Of course, no one taught me (or her) anything about vetting, or red flags, or anything like that.

      That’s one reason I read these blogs. To learn, so I can teach my kids.

      Liked by 5 people

    • NOW he tells me? Sheesh!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      It’s why these discussions, historically, have had very limited utility, really.

      I mean people can co-miserate to some degree, yes.

      People can share some very limited amount of very 30k foot “baseline” “best practices” kind of things.

      When you get beyond that … you very, very, very quickly reach deep, genuine, substantial, fundamental disagreement. Intractable, unmovable, basic, fundamental, world-view level disagreement, once you try to go anywhere other than the most basic baseline 30k-foot issue.

      Lutherbot isn’t completely wrong in his diagnosis, in that a part of this is due to faith differences between the different Christianities represented in the participants. That’s without question a major reason. But there are others — the nature of the internet and internet discourse itself, the fact that most people here are already in their 50s and quite well-settled in their views, the fact that around these kinds of life-central issues in general (strategies around finding and keeping a mate) there is very little agreement even in the broader culture, and people tend to keep closely to their own counsel, and so on.

      It’s generally why these discussions, when we have had them in the past, tend to get to about this point and then stall because this is where the “wall of unbreachable disagreement” is reached, beyond which we simply cannot go.

      I do not exempt myself from this, by the way. It is how it is. Shrug

      Liked by 8 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Lutherbot is a common form of American Christian who is like a Calvinist in that the truly saved invariably demonstrate the fruits of the spirit (and evidence to the contrary is proof of not being truly saved) it’s just that the “elect” are those who have heard the authentic gospel.

        Try not to get discouraged – maybe there’s something to gain out of this series.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @ Nova:

        Yes. And no. What -historically- makes for a good marriage is the same as it’s ever been. If I had to make a list:

        initial attraction
        shared faith and values
        lack of previous sexual partners to compare to is very helpful and God’s best.
        regular sex as much as is possible (patient practice will make perfect)
        treat each other with love as defined in Scripture (1 Cor 13, Philippians 4)
        wife submit to and respect husband
        husband love wife, lead wife in Christ, get to know wife so that he can dwell with her according to knowledge
        commitment to vows; nobody leaves

        If there’s a formula, that’s it. We do these things, but it’s not OUR formula. It’s God’s outline.

        Not necessarily easy all the time, but we’re Christians. Even when we don’t execute everything perfectly, We don’t have to do it alone. And there should really be broad agreement that commitment to Christ invites supernatural power to rise above our lower instincts.

        But no one can make their spouse do these things. We can only control ourselves.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Cameron

        The circular reasoning of the elect “must not have been a real Christian” is breathtaking in its child like understanding of cause and effect

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Elspeth —

        I disagree, but it is pointless at this point to get into it — well and truly.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Fair enough, Nova. I left out money and class stuff because I assumed a “goid match” was a given.

        That said, I think my experience is outlier-ish enough that I’m mostly pointless here. It’s been real though. My weeks recovering from the plague which shall not be named ended a week ago, so…

        But I am fighting the good fight, encouraging the women in my circle to be good wives, respect their husbands, and do all the stuff. Even the hard things.

        Whatever that is worth.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        I’m not a Calvinist. I believe in free will. But, the Bible is pretty clear that a person who leaves the faith proves by doing so that “they were not of us”.

        1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

        Liked by 2 people

    • lastmod says:

      Well Scott many of the postings in the ‘sphere come off as this….not just the replies. DO this. WOmen must have, men must do, must act, must behave…….

      The endless posts about vetting, and IF she has just any flaw or any red flag, dump her, drop her…….

      Most men who DO have good marriages didn’t apply hlaf of what they are purporting to younger men, or men looking for a wife. It’s almost like Josh Harris’s stances.Yes, noble, an ideal, some good advice……..but it makes people STUCK. Marriage is down in the church? Oh its the “the worldly culture! It’s people not following the Bible or coming to church to meet a really wonderful gal or great guy!”

      Maybe its some of the sanctimonius rules, (Dalrock’s rules, Rollo’s rules, Vox says…Roosh’s Law……) and a solid lead block of unmovebale things. Once a ho always a ho……..and then “you gotta sytuck being a Beta, it will take years of hard work” then with the slight of hand “its easy, just follow these rules / you wasted too much time / you got on board too late / men must marry a woman who is at peak fertility between the ages of 18 and 25” countless others…..

      What of this jesus? This savior? This grace? this love? This hope? This “second chance” and this humilty that I read for year in the bible??????

      For men, its evidently for the birds…..and for women, they must adhere to every iota or “she isn’t worth marrying / AWALT”

      What of christ? If he took these stances and “laws” and “rules” with man there would be nothing for anyone. We would be all doomed from the moment we came out of the womb!

      Hence where we are in soe cases. Men need to be convinced of a Savior, not how hot she is, not what level of Greek term you are on or working towards…..not some law made by man, or rule………..

      In the faith now and for a LONG time, men (and yes women too) have been given impossible standards, and then the sphere, the churchians wring their hands and wonder why marriage is still declining. We could say the culture, and I would agree….but much of it is here in these forums itself.

      I’m a hopless and lst cause……but for some younger men……it’s pretty bleak reading here, or impossible metrics and confusing math equations, and number, and rules…..and looks don’t count but get muscles, looks max and how to get intot he top 20%

      Things that meant nothing to christ.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        We would be all doomed from the moment we came out of the womb!

        Uh… we are.

        Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
        And in sin my mother conceived me.

        We inherited that doom from our father, Adam.

        Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

        That’s kind of why we need a savior.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        Adam is not my father. His name was Cheszca (Chet).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Adam is not my father.

        Biblically, “father” means “ancestor” in this case. But, you already knew that.

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I’ll own it too. I’m like Oscar. I didn’t vet properly. I was not letting my big head do all the thinking. There were plenty of red flags i ignored or didn’t know was a red flag. I gave her plenty of red flags too, I’m sure. My marriage is what happens when desperate leftover in panic mode meets hopeless hapless blue pill beta simp.

      No one taught me about vetting. Everyone around me was greenlighting us. I thought i had vetted her pretty well. I thought I knew what red flags were.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti

        I was not letting my big head do all the thinking.

        Preach, brother! Curves, long hair, and pretty eyes caused vapor lock in my brain assembly.

        No one taught me about vetting. Everyone around me was greenlighting us. I thought i had vetted her pretty well. I thought I knew what red flags were.

        Not only does no one outside the manosphere teach young men about vetting, they teach outright lies. One of the common lies I heard was that if you both love Jesus everything will be okay.

        Yeah, not quite.

        Just because a person is spiritually redeemed, that doesn’t mean that the destructive thought patterns, and behavior patterns they learned in childhood magically go away. That was true for both of us.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        Oscar wrote,

        “Just because a person is spiritually redeemed, that doesn’t mean that the destructive thought patterns, and behavior patterns they learned in childhood magically go away.”

        Friday’s post will address this effect.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I’ve gone on record here pointing out I didn’t “vet”. I think mine is one of the cases in which even cursory Red Pill vetting would have revealed a poor match. We spent the next 15 years trying to hammer that square peg into a round hole.

        Hindsight is always 20/20. If red pilled me were transported back to 1994, we wouldn’t have made it to the end of the year dating. Back to 1996, I would have called off the wedding. Back to 1998, I would have divorced her. But you get committed to the trail, and this is what happens.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti

        I’ve gone on record here pointing out I didn’t “vet”. I think mine is one of the cases in which even cursory Red Pill vetting would have revealed a poor match. We spent the next 15 years trying to hammer that square peg into a round hole.

        I’m right there with you. We’re still trying to make things work. Some days are better than others. It’s like trying to run an engine on a fuel it wasn’t designed for.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL I vetted pretty dang well and my marriage was a train wreck so to a certian degree I’m not sure it matters.

        My ex wife became a junkie while we were mairred….yay medical doctors!……. but she turned a lot in just a few months and way before the pills

        Liked by 4 people

  18. Oscar says:

    One of the concepts that’s always irritated me is the idea that women have no moral agency.

    Moral agency is defined as “an individual’s ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.”

    We expect toddlers, including toddler girls, to “make moral judgments on some notion of right and wrong”, and we hold them “accountable for these actions”, but we can’t expect that of adult women? But we expect adult women – who are supposedly incapable of making “moral judgments on some notion of right and wrong” – to raise toddlers who are capable of making “moral judgments on some notion of right and wrong”, and hold those toddlers “accountable for” their “actions”?

    What? Seriously?

    Women are active moral agents, endowed with free will, just like men are. And just like men, women’s moral agency and free will are infected with the curse of sin. But, because their nature is different from ours, that infection manifests itself differently in women than it does in men.

    Because of the sinful nature, a man could be the perfect husband (he won’t, but go with it), and his wife could still leave him.

    Similarly, a woman could be the perfect wife (she won’t be… ), and her husband could still cheat on her.

    Similarly, a couple could be the perfect parents (they won’t be… ), and one, or more of their kids could still wreck their lives.

    That doesn’t change the fact that, when parents stay together for life, that increases their kids’ odds of success dramatically.

    Similarly, that doesn’t change the fact that, when a couple are both virgins at marriage, that increases their odds of marital success dramatically.

    No guarantees, just worse odds, and better odds.

    Liked by 4 people

    • feeriker says:

      It’s not that women don’t have moral agency. It’s that men, collectively (a.k.a. “society”) have absolved them of applying it.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ feeriker

        I agree with you, but there are a lot of manosphere writers who argue that women have no agency.

        https://www.returnofkings.com/28890/the-myth-of-female-agency

        In that, they agree with feminists. The definition of agency includes being held accountable for ones actions, and feminists never hold women accountable for their actions. Feminists then claim that women have agency, even though they should never be held accountable for their actions.

        The manosphere writers who claim that women have no agency do the opposite. They support holding women accountable for their actions (as if they had agency), then turn around and claim women have no “ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong”, because they have no agency.

        Both positions contradict themselves.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        CREC/ Doug Wilson / it’s good to be a man / warhorn all effectively believe women have no agency.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        I compared different views on women’s agency in this post.
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/the-dalrock-route/

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        If someone has no moral agency you wouldn’t punish them for crimes, right? Women in all societies are punished for crimes.

        Women ON AVERAGE compared to men:
        make decisions that are more influenced by emotion
        are more superstitious
        rationalize things (the hamster)
        are characterized by an effective solipsism (not as a formal philosophical position) – the
        tendency to equate internal experiences and subjectivity for objective reality
        communicate in coded ways, implicit ways

        These things make most of them less suitable for leadership, whether it be of the family or the nation.

        But they have the capacity for will and reason and so have moral agency. They should be expected to exercise it – white knights don’t help this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        In America women serve less time for the same crime than men.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Cameron —

        Women are like that because of their existential vulnerability. They sense intuitively that the application of abstract rules to themselves is maladaptive given their vulnerability.

        It isn’t a question of agency, but rather the specific temptation each sex has to violate the moral law.

        Women are tempted to violate the moral law because of the existential vulnerability they feel they uniquely are subject to as a sex that men are not. So, the things you mention (solipsism, subjectivity as primary, a relative discomfort with abstraction and generalization and a strong preference for context, circumstances and the concrete case, indirect vs direct communication, passive aggression etc) are all manifestations of this and present women’s specific temptation to exercise their agency to violate the moral law. Women will often feel “justified” in their violation of the moral law for these “reasons”, all of which are essentially rooted in her overarching, existential sense of vulnerability — a sense which drives her strong tendency to be tempted to contextualize the application of any moral rule to themselves in order to enhance their survivability in what they see as an inherently vulnerable position.

        Men are tempted to violate the moral law to gain advantage as well, but this doesn’t come from a sense of vulnerability, generally (there are exceptions, like effeminate men, gays etc), but from a desire to get the thing that the rule prevents — in itself. It’s more of a “to hell with the rules, I want X” mentality which tends to be less self-justifying and more simple self-aggrandizement and open embrace of evil, selfishness and the like, almost reveling in it. We see this in everything from criminals to SMP players … little rationalization, more an attitude of wanting X so doing Y.

        In the end both agentic violations of the moral law, clearly, but still quite different. And because women are very, very good at peddling their version/take/spin of events to men, in general, men tend to buy it as well, and therefore tend to accept women’s rationalizations of their own actions as offered to mitigate or eliminate women’s responsibility for these transgressions, while holding men to a stricter standard because men either do not offer the rationalizations to begin with (they simply embrace the evil with gusto) or, if they do, are not taken seriously by other men.

        Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        I have seen almost all women do what Nova is describing there. Including my mother, my wife, my sisters, and my daughter.

        “I know what the rule is. But the rule shouldn’t apply to me because I am a woman and therefore X.”

        “I did those bad things because [insert reason here] – I had low self esteem, I was drunk or high or stoned or trippin, Daddy didn’t give me enough attention, Mommy was a bitch, mean girls were mean to me, my friends were doing the same thing…. and therefore I am not responsible for doing those bad things.”

        “I did those bad things, and I’m responsible, but I should not be punished/have adverse consequences imposed on me because I’m a woman and therefore Y.”

        “I did those bad things, and I am responsible, and I should be punished, but the punishment/consequences should be ameliorated/lesser in this particular instance because I’m a woman and therefore Z.”

        “I did those bad things and I’m responsible and I am being punished, but the punishment/consequences should be ceased because I’m a woman and therefore A.”

        “Don’t hit me I’m a girl!”

        “You can’t hit me I’m a girl!”

        “I can hit you all I want, but you can’t hit me back cuz I’m a girl!”

        We give girls the “p*ssy pass” because we need every girl we can get. We need every girl preserved, because girls become women, and girls have wombs, and we need all those wombs for reproduction. Also, they’re smaller and weaker.

        Men also have a reflexive protective instinct. When you see a woman, any woman, needing help, you have to fight, and fight very hard, not to respond with help. Almost all men automatically think “woman needs help, it’s my job to help” because “we need to preserve all women at all costs because we need them to make more people”.

        Just another instance where women fought very hard for all the benefits of being men while retaining at the same time all the benefits of being women while carrying none of the burdens of being men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Men also have a reflexive protective instinct. When you see a woman, any woman, needing help, you have to fight, and fight very hard, not to respond with help. Almost all men automatically think “woman needs help, it’s my job to help” because “we need to preserve all women at all costs because we need them to make more people”.

        That’s only true in the West, and it’s because of this verse.

        1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

        Of course, that verse is preceded by the trade-off.

        1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

        Women want to be treated “as… the weaker vessel” when it suits them, but they don’t want to do any of the things that the previous six verses require of them.

        They want to have it both ways, and they have for several decades now, but it won’t last. I’ve been to places where men beat their women openly in the streets, and everyone walks past with a look that says “serves her right”.

        That’s the direction we’re heading.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        That’s only true in the West, and it’s because of this verse.

        It’s true that men don’t respond to women’s dissembling the same way in other cultures. Islam is probably the most extreme case, followed by some of the less urbanized parts of India. East Asia is a bit more moderate than that, but they don’t treat women like we do.

        In part it’s Christianity, but really, it’s more specifically Anglo culture. Continental Europe is much less like that, even though it’s closer to Anglo norms than anywhere else in the world is, as you’d expect due to proximity.

        It also doesn’t appear to have been the case in Anglo culture historically, if literature is to be believed — that is, much before around 1700. In the period after 1700 something changed in Anglo culture that really elevated the status/esteem of women far above what exists even in other European cultures, and these developments spread here as well. It’s one of the main reasons why we see feminism in Anglo countries being so much more virulent than it is in continental European countries — the continent is just as “feminist”, but the way that this plays out and looks, in the culture on the ground, is much less extreme (even in places like Scandinavia, which people tend to think is extreme) than in most of the Anglo world.

        Something is particularly rotten about white Anglo culture when it comes to women.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack

        I compared different views on women’s agency in this post.
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/the-dalrock-route/

        Here’s what you wrote in “The Dalrock Route”.

        In my own writings on Σ Frame, I presume that women are spiritually immature (lacking agency), but that they should be expected to mature, develop spiritual awareness, and a sense of social responsibility.

        Here’s the way I would put it.

        I would compare moral agency to muscles. Everyone is born with the same muscles (with few exceptions). Those muscles are supposed to develop with increased maturity. We further develop our muscles by exercising (applying resistance to) them. Unexercised muscles atrophy, but they’re still there.

        Likewise, both men and women have agency. We’re all supposed to develop our innate agency as we mature. We’re supposed to further develop our agency by exercising (applying resistance to) it. Men tend to do that more than women, because we naturally meet more resistance in life than women do. Unexercised agency atrophies, but it’s still there.

        Understanding that no perfect analogy exists, how does your view differ from what I wrote above?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Oscar, your analogy of agency being like physical training is pretty accurate.

        Like

    • SFC Ton says:

      I don’t see a whole lot of evidence women have moral agncey

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Do you hold the women in your life accountable for their actions?

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL the rule is be good or be gone and I have booted my own daughter from life more then once

        But that isn’t a moral code for women, that’s all fear of loosing whatever it is that I provide

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Be good” is an example of “some notion of right and wrong”.

        “Be gone” is an example of holding them accountable for their actions.

        You actions towards your daughter are 100% consistent with the definition of moral agency.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    EVERYBODY
    Heres the anwser!From JOHN GAFFERTY&THE BROWN BEAVER BAND(Band{Who sounds like BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN} who sings on eddie&thecruisers 2 films{’84&’89!But this is from ’86!)
    ”SMALLTOWN GIRL”
    Smalltown girls drive me crazy!
    I met this girl on the other side of town!
    She wants to settle down & raise a family!
    P.S.The name as usual!

    Like

  20. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    This here is one of my all-time favourite songs!I go crazy!”It’s just like heaven,being here with you!Your like an angel too good to be true!Ilove you!I realy do!No one can love you!Like I DO!ANGEL BABY”!Anybody else on vetting?This was’nt all of us as kids?Then we got more exposure to the real-world!
    Also like john&zepplin said ”whatever happened to ROSIE&THE ORIGINALS”?Did ROSALIE ”ROSIE” MENDEZ HAMLIN move back to ANCHORAGE,ALASKA?

    Like

  21. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    EVERYBODY
    All of you know about, the married 30 year old occupational therapist with 2 kids that was heavily hinting, she wanted to get up with myself?From on deepstrength?Heres the rest of the story from myself&paul harvey!During that whole time, I could’nt walk!?No!I don’t think I look like a model either!Never have thought that!I just do the same thing, I have done since age 4!Barely caring!I hav’nt told you this since the begging?But everybody is sure you need to learn the 3R’s of ROISSY,ROOSH&ROLLO?Or even that corey wayne guy with his 3%man stuff?Just like learn the big M &be a MANOWARtm man like myself instead!!!All daladies secretly love MANOWARtm!!!With their ”guiness world” record-breaking decibles of sound in concert why would they not right!?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. feeriker says:

    Men also have a reflexive protective instinct. When you see a woman, any woman, needing help, you have to fight, and fight very hard, not to respond with help. Almost all men automatically think “woman needs help, it’s my job to help” because “we need to preserve all women at all costs because we need them to make more people”.

    Some (many?) of us are finding that once-instinctive reaction easier and easier to ignore, especially where it concerns women who are not our wives or immediate family members.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. Scott says:

    By the way, Morrisey and The Smiths gave us an ominous look at the future of mate selection from the perspective of the club scene, in 1985.

    I am the son
    And the heir
    Of a shyness that is criminally vulgar
    I am the son and heir
    Of nothing in particular
    You shut your mouth
    How can you say
    I go about things the wrong way?
    I am human and I need to be loved
    Just like everybody else does
    I am the son
    And the heir
    Of a shyness that is criminally vulgar
    I am the son and heir
    Of nothing in particular
    You shut your mouth
    How can you say
    I go about things the wrong way?
    I am human and I need to be loved
    Just like everybody else does
    There’s a club if you’d like to go
    You could meet somebody who really loves you
    So you go and you stand on your own
    And you leave on your own
    And you go home and you cry
    And you want to die
    When you say it’s gonna happen now
    When exactly do you mean?
    See I’ve already waited too long
    And all my hope is gone
    You shut your mouth
    How can you say
    I go about things the wrong way?
    I am human and I need to be loved
    Just like everybody else does

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Yeah Moz was an interesting character when he was in The Smiths. Marr says that Moz was basically celibate during his time in the band (the quote from a 1984 which I recalled, and just looked up again, from Marr was that Moz at the time “doesn’t participate in sex at the moment and hasn’t done so for a while”. He was also always very ambiguous about his sexuality — the sexual history is vague for him, and true to form he generally deflects attempts to make it less vague, but he appears to be some sort of mostly asexual person, or at least someone with a troubled sexuality, who, when he is actively sexual, is some sort of “bisexual” … which all sounds very odd because there are, in reality, almost no men who are really bisexual.

      In any case, I always found his lyrics to be hard to parse due to his sexual ambiguity. One of my best friends in college liked The Smiths a lot, and so we would discuss the lyrics, because Smiths lyrics are so … odd. Like that song there … can easily be read as pretty much from a closeted young gay guy, but it could be from the perspective of a shy straight young man as well … it’s ambiguous. The “gay” is suggested, because the sensitivity expressed, at least in that era, seems uncharacteristic for that generation of British men, but … because it’s Moz it’s ambiguous. It’s kind of like “There Is A Light that Never Goes Out”, which appears to be a song about a young gay man who was thrown out of the family home and his boyfriend (or would be boyfriend), but … it could also be about someone who is helping someone who left or got kicked out of the house for other reasons (although, again, the “yearning” or “sensitivity” expressed in the song suggests “gay”, it is still open to interpretation). Earlier tracks like “This Charming Man” were more openly gay in content, really, with that song appearing to be about a young man who is engaged and has a sexual encounter with an older man … but Moz is always hard to read, in terms of his lyrics, and how they intersected with himself and his very ambiguous sexuality.

      It’s ironic, though, as you point out that some of these sexually ambiguous lyrics appear to apply to the straight world in a different country 35 years later.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “He was also always very ambiguous about his sexuality — the sexual history is vague for him, and true to form he generally deflects attempts to make it less vague, but he appears to be some sort of mostly asexual person….”

        yeah they used to say that about Gomer Pyle – then he married some old gay dude – “Backdoor Homo Again in Indiana”

        Every kid in school we assumed was gay turned out to be gay.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      We Hate It When Our Friends Become Successful sums things up almost as nicely.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. Scott says:

    I wonder if maybe the reason whatever Uber alpha genes I share with my dad and bothered never got the chance fully express themselves in the most Chad like dark triad form is because all my favorite artists turned out to be totally gay.

    Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, The Smiths, Erasure. You get the idea.

    Me and my HS jock friends just thought the music was cool.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      You’re the doctor so not gonna play amateur pysch here but I assume you’re not a subclinical psychopath so you don’t have the dark triad – isn’t that what dark triad is – psychopathic traits?

      Liked by 1 person

    • elspeth says:

      Or Scott, could be you were just a good person (making allowances for all the spiritual caveats that can be made in response to such statements implying inherent human goodness).

      Liked by 2 people

    • lastmod says:

      Moz really isn’t bi or gay….he was always asexual in a sense…..I really dislike how he has been “claimed” by gay culture as “theirs” (which they also did to Abba), and other pop stars like Taylor Dane, Samantha Fox, Cher, Wham, and even Luther Vandross.

      The Smiths were one of the 1980’s bands that I actually liked. Though they were not too popular. They never had a hit in the USA, and they fared better in the UK but really Moz commented about all the recent praise of “The Queen Is Dead” (1985) as being one of the top albums ever made

      “Ummm….I find it strange that that album is getting all this praise now because when it was released, it sold under 50,000 units and had zero airplay on mainstream radio.”

      I was one of the 50,000 that bought in 1985

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Samantha Fox is claimed by the gay culture? My uncle had a Samantha Fox topless calendar – not that I ever looked at it.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Interesting he would say that about TQID. Wiki says that the album was on the BB top 200 in the US (and eventually went gold, or 500k units, by 1990) and peaked at No. 26 in the UK, higher in Europe. Methinks that means more than 50k copies. Moz can be a bit … spotty in his recollections of things I have found, lol. Marr is normally a better resource about all things Smiths. Still, it’s true that The Smiths were never a mainstream act in the US. They were far too “English” in theme for that really.

        Samantha Fox is claimed by the gay culture?

        She had girlfriends and boyfriends. I believe later in life she was “partnered” with her female manager, whom I believe passed away. As far as I know, she has never used the “gay” or “lesbian” label. My guess is that she is either actually bisexual or, more likely, a straight girl who got sick of men due to the sex culture she was tied up in and eventually used her “sexual flexibility” (which some, but not all, straight women have) to opt for women.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        Yeah by 1990 the sales were half a million….still paltry even in 1990 for a signed group that was being touted heavily in the alternative press. . In 1985 the sales were dismal…I know today everyone bought it the day it came out…………but you know, Johnson won a landslide in 1964 and yet notta one person can be found who voted for him…..

        Seen Moz in concert several times since 1989….met Mike Joyce from The Smiths when he was sitting in with PIL when I saw them in 1992.

        I didn’t know any jock, or popular kid who liked The Smiths. Loners, alernative / new waves types and of course many girls……not that ever helped me back then.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        Oh…wikipedia is a reliable source now????????????????????

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “used her “sexual flexibility” (which some, but not all, straight women have)….”
        – Novaseeker

        “I know what goes on down there and I don’t want anything to do with that”
        – My wife

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I just remember Samantha Fox for crappy 80s British pop (“Naughty Girls Need Love Too!”) and she was the first woman I can remember with bizarre (pink) hair color. And the calendar.

        We saw her maybe a decade or so ago on some show being interviewed – British whores don’t age well.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        We saw her maybe a decade or so ago on some show being interviewed – British whores don’t age well.

        They do if they take care of themselves properly. Fox was not careful with herself, rode high on the hog in the 1980s and didn’t do her physique any long-term favors. Liz Hurley, also a Brit beauty/sex object of the same era as Fox, is a year older and looks stunning still: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-hurley-sister-age-defying-bikini-photo-wow-081712815.html

        Her sister looks great at 57, too, even though she isn’t tasked with being “professionally” beautiful like Liz is. Gotta love those genes!

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        I didn’t know any jock, or popular kid who liked The Smiths. Loners, alernative / new waves types and of course many girls……not that ever helped me back then.

        You didn’t grow up in 1980s southern California KROQ 106.7 surfer/jock culture.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        obviously I didn’t…….

        The Adirondacks Mountains and vast State Park / Preserve which were my backyard is the only redeeming thing about where I grew up. Eternal. Silent, and just mystical. That I miss….everything else? No.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Lol when I was young kroq introduced me to blink and linkin park

        Like

      • Scott says:

        The funny thing is, Mychael and I both grew up in it, only about 30 minutes apart from each other.

        Surfing at the same beaches (she surfed in high school) going to the same concerts, handing out in the same punk clubs. Probably passed each other on the same LA freeways a million times.

        Never met til our mid thirties in the Bay Area, 300 miles north.

        Culture may be one of the reasons we work. We have essentially the same itunes playlists.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Coming of age in 1980s Southern California was pretty much the most awesome thing, ever.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Coming of age in 1980s Southern California was pretty much the most awesome thing, ever.

        Yes, I had quite a few college friends who did just that, and I also remember our own “road trips” down to Southern California in the second half of the 1980s. It was really great then in many ways. Very different now, though, lol. Then again, so is the Bay.

        Culture may be one of the reasons we work. We have essentially the same itunes playlists.

        It’s actually more important than people think. When you have the same cultural references, it definitely seems to lead to much more similar mental frameworks (I mean, like, mental wallpaper, if that makes sense), even when disagreements arise.

        Liked by 2 people

  25. Pingback: Vetting is for identifying red flags from past behavior; future behavior needs Biblical solutions | Christianity and masculinity

  26. Pingback: Biblical Law’s Assumptions | Radix Fidem Blog

  27. elspeth says:

    Culture may be one of the reasons we work. We have essentially the same itunes playlists.

    That’s actually a pretty good point. About similar regional cultures, I mean. SAM and my worlds were overlapping years before we ever met. For instance he and my older brother knew each other because they both used the weight room at the same time as part of football training. Even though my brother was a senior and he was a freshman, they interacted a lot in there, spotting each other and all that jazz.

    SAM -an uncharacteristically popular freshman- never even knew my brother had a younger sister, that I existed at all, or that I was attending the same high school. It turned out to be a point of connection when we finally did meet after high school was behind us all.

    Now, we have people trying to mate up with almost zero common, regional or cultural backgrounds. It’s enough work just trying to meld together a good relationship having been raised in separate households.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Pingback: The Relinquished Life | Σ Frame

  29. Pingback: What would the world be like if everyone was Red Pilled? | Σ Frame

  30. Pingback: More on the Framework of Options | Σ Frame

  31. Pingback: The Spiritual Confusion of Clinging to the “Rules” | Σ Frame

  32. Pingback: Viewpoints on Man’s Confusion about How God Works in the Life of a Believer | Σ Frame

  33. Pingback: Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum | Σ Frame

  34. Pingback: Anglo Femlightenment | Σ Frame

  35. Pingback: Commonalities of Successful Marriages | Σ Frame

  36. Pingback: Rules and Trust | Σ Frame

  37. Pingback: Moral Injury | Σ Frame

  38. Pingback: Taking Headship by Force | Σ Frame

  39. Pingback: A Man’s Ability to Read IOIs Depends on Having a Firm Grasp on His Personal Archetypal Mythos | Σ Frame

  40. Pingback: The Feminine Christian Marriage Quadrilemma | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s